How can we know that God is?

[Tassman]

Where is this evidence that Christian belief evolved from saying Jesus was nothing more than a ghost to the resurrection was physical? I mean that his one huge step that nobody seemed to object to when it happened.

Jesus’ appearance on the Damascus Rd was a visionary experience of some sort which Paul equates with the multiple “appearances” listed in 1 Cor 15. That there is no fleshly body of Jesus is evidenced by the confusion regarding the event depicted in Acts. Certainly, there was no realistic physical body such as that described the decades-later gospels – e.g., the doubting Thomas story with Jesus’ wounds being physically touched.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

By no means obvious, and contrary to your opinion, I don't care whether any part of the Bible is accurate or not. If an author got something wrong, it is no more than evidence that he was not infallible.

Which raises a very large question mark over the internal narrative of these biblical texts.

I don't consider a scant few errors to impact particularly on a writer's overall veracity, nor that a scant few verified claims show a writer to be reliable.

I would not consider the contradictions between Acts 9 and Galatians 1 to be "a few scant errors".

As I said, it may be that Luke picks up after Paul's return to Damascus from Arabia. I won't know until I have examined the texts fully.

Once again speculating will achieve nothing. The texts contradict one another.

You haven't examined the text, nor paid attention to my comments. I have formed a hypothesis based on a brief overview that I have not tested - a hypothesis is not a theory.

You are trying to reconcile two contradictory accounts.

I have not said that the texts don't contradict each other. I have said that on the basis of a brief overview, there is a possibility that they could be reconciled.

By torturing the text?

What seems possible on a brief overview may prove to be not so with closer examination.

Claims of contradictions are not often borne out by examination, but it does happen from time to time.

Whether the texts contradict each other will not be established on the basis of partisan commentators' claims.

Do you consider that you are not partisan?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So what evidence do you have that Paul's use of quotes from the Old Testament did not match one of the early first century Hebrew versions of the Old Testament?

The "minor" differences in the renderings are hardly inconsequential.

I never mentioned "minor" differences. I wrote that the two texts were:

not overly different concerning faith and the righteous

And you were the one who introduced the MT.

[tabibito]

I never mentioned "minor" differences. I wrote that the two texts were:

not overly different concerning faith and the righteous

Regardless of the precise language used, the "not overly different" wording does have a significant impact for interpretation, and the fact remains that Paul was writing in Greek, not Hebrew. It would be reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of his intended audience would not know Hebrew, and the Septuagint was considered authoritative by the Jewish religious authorities until at least twenty years after the fall of Jerusalem. All of which means that Paul would have solid reason to use the LXX.

And you were the one who introduced the MT.

So which version of the Hebrew scriptures, written in Hebrew, do you claim were being used in the temple at Jerusalem? Without knowing the answer to that question and being able to show the content of its texts, it is not possible to declare that the Hebrew scriptures used in the temple were not accurately reflected in whatever LXX version Paul might have been using. Given the imprecision (by comparison with extant versions of the LXX and Hebrew scriptures) of the citation of Habakkuk that Paul presented, no accurate assessment of Paul's source material seems possible.

[rogue06]

Look who has been busy Googling!

Indeed. And obviously had far more success than you did who returned empty-handed.

So when can we expect you to again start declaring that Luke's Acts of the Apostles is a Greek or Hellenistic romance?

I mean, it isn't as if you were schooled on this the last time and learned nothing.

[rogue06]

Why are you writing posts to yourself?

Responded twice to this post, huh? Must be something in it bothering you.

The very fact that you haven't produced anything supporting your typical ignorant ravings about Scripture pretty much says it all.

Seriously, it would behoove you to actually read what you have been criticizing all these years rather than relying on snippets provided by critics.

[rogue06]

Jesus’ appearance on the Damascus Rd was a visionary experience of some sort which Paul equates with the multiple “appearances” listed in 1 Cor 15. That there is no fleshly body of Jesus is evidenced by the confusion regarding the event depicted in Acts. Certainly, there was no realistic physical body such as that described the decades-later gospels – e.g., the doubting Thomas story with Jesus’ wounds being physically touched.

So reduced to just repeating your initial assertion sans a scintilla of supporting evidence. IOW, effectively an empty chant.

[tabibito]

Jesus’ appearance on the Damascus Rd was a visionary experience of some sort which Paul equates with the multiple “appearances” listed in 1 Cor 15. That there is no fleshly body of Jesus is evidenced by the confusion regarding the event depicted in Acts. Certainly, there was no realistic physical body such as that described the decades-later gospels – e.g., the doubting Thomas story with Jesus’ wounds being physically touched.

If Jesus had not been restored to physical life, he would not have been alive.　Paul quite explicitly declared that、 post resurrection, Jesus was alive.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Responded twice to this post, huh? Must be something in it bothering you.

The very fact that you haven't produced anything supporting your typical ignorant ravings about Scripture pretty much says it all.

Seriously, it would behoove you to actually read what you have been criticizing all these years rather than relying on snippets provided by critics.

I just find your tendency to write posts to yourself somewhat peculiar. With whom are you attempting to communicate?

Indeed. And obviously had far more success than you did who returned empty-handed.

So when can we expect you to again start declaring that Luke's Acts of the Apostles is a Greek or Hellenistic romance.

I mean, it isn't as if you were schooled on this the last time and learned nothing.

If you consider what you produced proves your point, why should we disabuse you and spoil your little fantasy?

[rogue06]

I just find your tendency to write posts to yourself somewhat peculiar. With whom are you attempting to communicate?

It is nice to some times document things and their rebuttal

If you consider what you produced proves your point, why should we disabuse you and spoil your little fantasy?

As per usual you've learned nothing because you cannot ever allow yourself to be wrong about anything. If you ever said the earth is flat well then by God you will stick to that position regardless of niggling details like facts and evidence to the contrary.

So I guess, until next time, when you again decide to expose your laughable ignorance on the topic.

You know after your earlier fiasco regarding Acts, it seems that this particular work gives you know end of trouble.

Maybe you really should read it before trying to pontificate on it again

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Regardless of the precise language used, the "not overly different" wording does have a significant impact for interpretation, and the fact remains that Paul was writing in Greek, not Hebrew. It would be reasonable to assume that a significant proportion of his intended audience would not know Hebrew, and the Septuagint was considered authoritative by the Jewish religious authorities until at least twenty years after the fall of Jerusalem. All of which means that Paul would have solid reason to use the LXX.

You appear to hold the view that in the early first century the LXX was one accepted universal text. That was not the case. The various translations of the Hebrew bible texts show differences in style, accuracy, and substance and indicate that there was no single original translation into Greek. The various MSS found at Qumran along with other early MSS as well as quotations from the LXX in ancient writings are evidence that revisions were constantly being made. I recommend you go back to the university library and find the Anchor Bible Dictionary [all six volumes] and read the entry on the Septuagint.

[tabibito]

you appear to hold the view that in the early first century the lxx was one accepted universal text. That was not the case. The various translations of the hebrew bible texts show differences in style, accuracy, and substance and indicate that there was no single original translation into greek. The various mss found at qumran along with other early mss as well as quotations from the lxx in ancient writings are evidence that revisions were constantly being made. I recommend you go back to the university library and find the anchor bible dictionary [all six volumes] and read the entry on the septuagint.

https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...38#post1387038

it is not possible to declare that the hebrew scriptures used in the temple were not accurately reflected in whatever LXX version paul might have been using

[rogue06]

You appear to hold the view that in the early first century the LXX was one accepted universal text. That was not the case.

It was accepted up until it was decided that it wasn't. And that was likely due to Christians utilizing it. So it had to go.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It is nice to some times document things and their rebuttal

Why? Who cares?

As per usual you've learned nothing because you cannot ever allow yourself to be wrong about anything.

Once again you resort to caricature and misrepresentation. I would also point out that I never compared Acts to any ancient "romantic" novels. That is your interpretation.

However, if you consider citing a brief paragraph from Google edition of of a book and two sentences [with an error] from another Google edition of a book [neither of which I sincerely doubt you have actually read even in their reduced Google formats] as well as part of the introduction to an article in the Oxford Bibliographies series, constitutes any serious argument, it merely serves to illustrate your pretentions. An observation further demonstrated by the affectation of your footnote implying that you have some in depth understanding of Klijn's position.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

My error I missed that qualification. However, it might be contended that the Hebrew texts may not have conformed with the version of the LXX that Saul/Paul utilised.